-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
It's official, Bush will win comfortably in November.
- Thread starter Conscript
- Start date
That's voting for Bush.Daniel said:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/ now has Kerry winning whereas right after the RNC, Bush was way ahead of Kerry.
Robert said:
Wrong. If you vote for Nader, Nader is getting a vote that Kerry would never have gotten in the first place. If the fate of the election hangs on the few thousand minuscle votes that will go Nader's way, then that's Kerry's fault for not presenting himself well enough to appeal to a larger majority of voters than Bush.
If Kerry loses, it's KERRY'S fault.
loggerheads
New Member
tbh no-one's particularly wrong, it just depends how you look at it. On the one hand a vote for Nader is obviously not a vote for kerry or bush, and thus can be seen as a vote against both of them. The point here though is that because both Kerry and Nader are both relatively liberal, progressive, perhaps even left wing, it seems likely that a vote for nader is one bush was never likely to recieve, and Kerry might, therefore it can be interpreted as more against kerry than bush. The point, simply put is that in many and probably most cases, if Nader pulled out, the votes he would have recieved would instead be cast for Kerry.
I kinda respect Nader for what he's doing, he feels he has a point (or several) to make, and he's doing his best to make them. He is perhaps splitting the non-bush vote, but if Kerry was a good enough candidate it probably wouldn't even be an issue. Equally this situation is not like the one in france a couple of years ago when the left wing vote was unexpectedly hugely split over several different parties, and the french were left to choose between "the crook or the nazi," It seems the media coverage has been pretty clear, and I'd imagine most people know that if their only goal is to get bush out of the white house then they should vote kerry.
I kinda respect Nader for what he's doing, he feels he has a point (or several) to make, and he's doing his best to make them. He is perhaps splitting the non-bush vote, but if Kerry was a good enough candidate it probably wouldn't even be an issue. Equally this situation is not like the one in france a couple of years ago when the left wing vote was unexpectedly hugely split over several different parties, and the french were left to choose between "the crook or the nazi," It seems the media coverage has been pretty clear, and I'd imagine most people know that if their only goal is to get bush out of the white house then they should vote kerry.
The same reason the democrats are trying to stop him from getting on ballots and the same reason they didn't want Nader to run. The political games are played on both sides of the street.Robert said:
Politics is a dirty game at times, and I wouldn't call this race until the last minute. ( and even then...
)
Very dirty. And I'm not calling it until the following day! So much can happen when you go to sleep on the day the voting and you wake up!Todd said:The same reason the democrats are trying to stop him from getting on ballots and the same reason they didn't want Nader to run. The political games are played on both sides of the street.
Politics is a dirty game at times, and I wouldn't call this race until the last minute. ( and even then...
